Resurrection of the Dead Biblical Traditions in Dialogue

BIBLIOTHECA EPHEMERIDUM THEOLOGICARUM LOVANIENSIUM

CCIL

RESURRECTION OF THE DEAD BIBLICAL TRADITIONS IN DIALOGUE

EDITED BY

GEERT VAN OYEN – TOM SHEPHERD

UITGEVERIJ PEETERS LEUVEN – PARIS – WALPOLE, MA 2012 TABLE OF CONTENTS

PREFACE ...... VII

ABBREVIATIONS ...... XIII

I. THE HEBREW BIBLE

André WÉNIN (Université catholique de Louvain [Louvain-la- Neuve], Belgium) Enracinement vétérotestamentaire du discours sur la résurrec- tion de Jésus dans le Nouveau Testament ...... 3

Erik EYNIKEL (Radboud Universiteit Nijmegen, The Netherlands) La résurrection comme passerelle entre les sacrifices d’animaux dans l’Ancien Testament et le sacrifice de Jésus dans le Nouveau Testament ...... 25

Kristin DE TROYER (University of St Andrews, United Kingdom) The Garden: A Crucial Element or a Later Addition to the Resurrection Stories? ...... 41

Hans AUSLOOS (Université catholique de Louvain [Louvain-la-Neuve], Belgium) Selon les Écritures…? Job 14,12 comme racine vétérotestamen- taire de Jean 11 ...... 55

Hans DEBEL (KU Leuven, Belgium) Once More, with Feeling: Qoh 11,7–12,7 as the Ultimate Expression of Qohelet’s Alternative to Life-Beyond-Death . . . 73

Jacques B. DOUKHAN (Andrews University, Berrien Springs MI, USA) From Dust to Stars: The Vision of Resurrection(s) in Daniel 12,1-3 and Its Resonance in the Book of Daniel ...... 85

Jean-Sébastien REY (Université de Lorraine, Metz, France) L’espérance post-mortem dans la littérature de Sagesse du IIe siècle avant notre ère: Ben Sira et 4QInstruction ...... 99 X TABLE OF CONTENTS

II. THE NEW TESTAMENT

Odette MAINVILLE (Université de Montréal, Canada) Le rôle des récits résurrectionnels en Matthieu 28: Une relecture rédactionnelle ...... 119

Geert VAN OYEN (Université catholique de Louvain [Louvain-la- Neuve], Belgium) The Empty Tomb Story in the Gospel of Mark and Michel Foucault’s Concept of Heterotopia ...... 137

Tom SHEPHERD (Andrews University, Berrien Springs, MI, USA) Promise and Power: A Narrative Analysis of the Resurrection Story in Mark 16 in Codex Vaticanus and Codex Washing- tonianus ...... 159

Daniel MARGUERAT (Université de Lausanne, Suisse) Quand la résurrection se fait clef de lecture de l’histoire (Luc- Actes) ...... 183

Frederick S. TAPPENDEN (University of Manchester, United King- dom) Luke and Paul in Dialogue: Ritual Meals and Risen Bodies as Instances of Embodied Cognition ...... 203

Martijn STEEGEN (Research Foundation – Flanders [FWO] / KU Leuven, Belgium) Raising the Dead in John 5,19-30: Questioning Equality or Subordination in the Relationship between the Father and the Son 229

Gilbert VAN BELLE (KU Leuven, Belgium) The Resurrection Stories as Signs in the Fourth Gospel: R. Bult- mann’s Interpretation of the Resurrection Revisited ...... 249

Edward PILLAR (Evesham Baptist Church, Worcestershire, United Kingdom) “Whom He Raised from the Dead”: Exploring the Anti- Imperial Context of Paul’s First Statement of Resurrection . . . 265

Matthew R. MALCOLM (Trinity Theological College, Perth, Western Australia) The Resurrection of the Dead in 1 Corinthians ...... 275

Joel R. WHITE (Freie Theologische Hochschule Giessen, Germany) Christ’s Resurrection Is the Spirit’s Firstfruits (Romans 8,23) . 289 TABLE OF CONTENTS XI

Julian WAWRO (Université catholique de Louvain [Louvain-la- Neuve], Belgium) Légiférer ou croire en la Résurrection: Un dilemme des phari- siens? Le Christ ressuscité comme «pierre d’achoppement» en Rm 9,32 ...... 305

Michael LABAHN (Martin-Luther-Universität, Halle-Wittenberg, Halle, Germany / Northwest University Potchefstroom, South Africa) The Resurrection of the Followers of the Lamb: Between Heav- enly “Reality” and Hope for the Future. The Concept of Resur- rection within the Imagery of Death and Life in the Book of Revelation ...... 319

III. THE BIBLICAL CANON IN DIALOGUE

Constantin POGOR (Université catholique de Louvain [Louvain-la- Neuve], Belgium) Deux expressions portant sur la résurrection des morts: Étude de cas sur 4Q521 2 ii 5-8; 12-13 et Mt 11,5 par. Lc 7,22 . . . . 345

Heikki RÄISÄNEN (University of Helsinki, Finland) Resurrection for Punishment? The Fate of the Unrighteous in Early Christianity and in “New Testament Theology” ...... 361

Jonathan A. DRAPER (University of KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa) Walking the Way of Life or the Way of Death in the Present Existence as the Beginning of Eschatological Life or Death in the Renewed Earthly Kingdom: The Rationale for the Limitation of the Resurrection to the Righteous Departed in Didache 16,6-8 . 383

Mark R.C. GRUNDEKEN (Research Foundation – Flanders [FWO] / KU Leuven, Belgium) Resurrection of the Dead in the Shepherd of Hermas: A Matter of Dispute ...... 403

Gie VLEUGELS (Evangelische Theologische Faculteit, Heverlee, Belgium) Prospect of an afterlife in the Odes of Solomon ...... 417

José COSTA (Université de Paris III – Sorbonne Nouvelle, France) «Immortalité de l’âme ou résurrection des morts?»: La question d’Oscar Cullmann et le témoignage des sources rabbiniques anciennes ...... 429 XII TABLE OF CONTENTS

Stephen J. BEDARD (Acadia Divinity College, Wolfville, NS, Canada) A Nation of Heroes: From Apotheosis to Resurrection ...... 453

Tobias NICKLAS (Universität Regensburg, Germany) Resurrection – Judgment – Punishment: Apocalypse of Peter 4 461

Ryann Elizabeth CRAIG (The Catholic University of America, Washington, DC, USA) Anastasis in the Treatise on the Resurrection: How Jesus’ Example Informs Valentinian Resurrection Doctrine and Chris- tology ...... 475

Paul B. DECOCK (University of KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa) The Resurrection According to Origen of Alexandria ...... 497

IV. HISTORY, THEOLOGY AND HERMENEUTICS

Gergely JUHÁSZ (Liverpool Hope University, United Kingdom) Resurrection or Immortality of the Soul? A Dilemma of Refor- mation Exegesis ...... 517

Gerd LÜDEMANN (Göttingen, Germany) The Resurrection of Jesus: Fifteen Years Later ...... 535

Claire CLIVAZ (University of Lausanne, Switzerland) Why Were the Resurrection Stories Read and Believed? And What Are We Making of Them Today? ...... 559

INDICES

INDEX OF AUTHORS ...... 585

INDEX OF BIBLICAL REFERENCES ...... 599

INDEX OF OTHER REFERENCES ...... 621 LUKE AND PAUL IN DIALOGUE RITUAL MEALS AND RISEN BODIES AS INSTANCES OF EMBODIED COGNITION

I. INTRODUCTION

With what kind of body did Paul think Jesus was raised? Providing any kind of answer to this question must take account of Paul’s own description of resurrected bodies in 1 Corinthians 15. On the one hand, it cannot be denied that Paul insists on a bodily resurrection (15,42-44). As Dale Martin has skilfully illuminated, Paul’s entire somatic mapping in 1 Cor 15 is premised upon a hierarchical scale of low-level earthly substances and high-level celestial substances1. Thus, Paul understands resurrected bodies as being comprised of high- rather than low-level substance, which results in such bodies being much different than regular human bodies2. On the other hand, Paul insists that Christ is the firstfruits of those who will be raised at the eschaton (15,20.23; cf. 15,45-49). Given this connection between Christ (who has been raised) and those who believe in Christ (i.e., those who will one day be raised), the apostle understands Jesus’ risen body as a precursor, similar in both kind and substance, to that which is described in 15,35-50. Elsewhere Paul insists that believers’ bodies will one day be “conformed to his [Christ’s] body of glory” (súmmorfon t¬ç sÉmati t±v dózjv aûtoÕ – Phil 3,21), a passage that, in light of budding Jewish mysticism, suggests Paul may have understood Christ’s risen existence in relation to the kabod of God3.

1. D.B. MARTIN, The Corinthian Body, New Haven, CT, Yale University Press, 1995, pp. 117-129; see also pp. 3-37. Cf. P.F. CRAFFERT, The Life of a Galilean Shaman: Jesus of Nazareth in Anthropological-Historical Perspective (Matrix), Eugene, OR, Cascade Books, 2008, pp. 403-407. 2. Compare with A.J.M. Wedderburn, who argues that for Paul, a resurrection body is “more clearly defined in terms of what it is not than in terms of what it is; it is namely, none of those things which we normally associate with human bodies: it does not decay, is not weak, and so on” (A.J.M. WEDDERBURN, Beyond Resurrection, London, SCM Press, 1999, p. 74). 3. Cf. A.F. SEGAL, Paul’s Thinking about Resurrection in Its Jewish Context, in NTS 44 (1998) 400-419. On early Jewish mysticism and the kabod of God see, e.g., A.D. DECONICK, What Is Early Jewish and Christian Mysticism?, in ID., Paradise Now: Essays on Early Jewish and Christian Mysticism (SBL.SS, 11), Atlanta, GA, Society of Biblical Literature, 2006, 1-24; C.R.A. MORRAY-JONES, Paradise Revisited (2 Cor 12:1- 12): The Jewish Mystical Background of Paul’s Apostolate. Part 1: The Jewish Sources 204 F.S. TAPPENDEN

Unlike the Gospels of both Luke and John, which stress Jesus’ appearances as being instances of familiar corporeality, the more Paul describes risen bodies in 1 Cor 15, while also stressing Jesus as the forbearer of such a risen existence, the further one gets from a normal human body of flesh for the risen Christ. Paul certainly understands Christ to have a risen body, but the emphasis is squarely upon Jesus as a “life-giving spirit” (15,45) and not upon the more familiar body of flesh and blood4. The recognition of such a complexity in Paul’s thought vis-à-vis the narrative descriptions of the risen Jesus in the canonical Gospels (esp. Luke and John) has understandably led many to see a divide between the two. For instance, James Dunn insists that the physical body Luke describes (24,39) contrasts sharply with the spiritual body Paul describes (1 Cor 15,42-46); thus Dunn, “what Luke affirms (Jesus’ resurrection body was flesh and bones) Paul denies (the resurrection body is not com- posed of flesh and blood)!”5. This pitting of Paul and Luke in tension with one another is compounded no doubt by the tendency within NT scholarship to see the author of Luke-Acts (hereafter referred to as Luke for reasons of convenience) as unaware of Paul’s letters when he wrote. The following paper addresses both of these concerns, arguing that Luke- Paul connectivity should not so quickly be judged in the negative, and further that Luke and Paul share significant similarities in their conceptualizations of Jesus’ risen existence as it relates to the Lord’s Supper (esp. in 1 Cor 10–11 and Luke 24). This will be explored by first outlin- ing the theoretical and methodological underpinnings of this study, second by conducting a cognitive linguistic analysis of two key Pauline texts (1 Cor 11,23-26 and 1 Cor 10,17), and finally by analyzing the Lucan material in a similar light. What emerges is an intertextual examination of how early Christian texts interact with one another not through explicit and Part 2: Paul’s Heavenly Ascent and Its Significance, in HTR 86 (1993) 177-217 and 265-292. 4. This is not to say that Paul envisions resurrected beings as disembodied souls. It cannot be overemphasized that Paul does not operate with the same body-soul, matter- nonmatter, physical-spiritual dualism that is so prevalent within modern western society. Such strong ontological categories should not be imposed upon Paul’s writings. Thus, Dale Martin contends that, even in Pagan thought, “a ‘one world’ model is much closer to the ancient conception, and, instead of an ontological dualism, we should think of a hierarchy of essence” (MARTIN, Corinthian Body [n. 1], p. 15). This is complemented by Alan F. Segal who, rooting Paul in Jewish apocalypticism, contends that “Paul’s concept of the ‘soul’ is quite limited, unschooled by Platonic ideas of the soul’s immortality” (A.F. SEGAL, The Afterlife as Mirror of the Self, in F. FLANNERY – C. SHANTZ – R.A. WERLINE [eds.], Experientia: Volume 1. Inquiry into Religious Experience in Early Judaism and Early Christianity [SBL.SS, 40], Atlanta, GA, Society of Biblical Literature, 2008, 19-40, p. 22). 5. J.D.G. DUNN, The Evidence for Jesus: The Impact of Scholarship on Our Under- standing of How Christianity Began, London, SCM Press, 1985, p. 74. LUKE AND PAUL IN DIALOGUE 205 citations and allusions, but rather through shared conceptual and embodied structures.

II. EMBODIED COGNITION AND CONCEPTUAL METAPHORS FOR RESURRECTION IN PAUL

The discussion that follows will rest heavily upon a cognitive linguistic reading of several Pauline and Lucan texts6. Before traversing too far, it will be beneficial to outline the two theoretical concepts that will guide our analysis. First, this paper will employ George Lakoff and Mark John- son’s understanding of conceptual metaphor7, a concept that has signifi- cantly impacted contemporary understandings of the relationship between language and thought. Lakoff and Johnson focus much of their attention upon the way embodied human experiences function in the creation of linguistic meaning. In this view, metaphor is central to human cognition. Lakoff and Johnson focus not only on what are typically referred to as literary (or poetic) metaphors, but more foundationally upon metaphors that arise from embodied human experience in the world (both physio- logical and cultural). What emerges is the assertion that metaphors are central to human reasoning, enabling the human animal to take an abstract concept and “refer to it, quantify it, identify a particular aspect of it, see it as a cause, act with respect to it, and perhaps even believe that we understand it”8. Concerning the present study, the early Jewish and Christian notion of resurrection is most certainly an abstract domain of human thought, one that is necessarily structured in relation to more concrete and familiar domains of human experience. Accordingly, part of the present study will be an examination of the conceptual metaphors that structure both Paul’s and Luke’s understanding of resurrection. Lakoff and Johnson’s understanding of conceptual metaphor is ana- lytically complemented by Gilles Fauconnier and Mark Turner’s under-

6. For uses of cognitive linguistics within the study of Christian origins, see B. HOWE, Because You Bear This Name: Conceptual Metaphor and the Moral Meaning of 1 Peter (BIS, 81), Leiden, Brill, 2006, as well as a number of the essays in P. LUOMANEN – I. PYYSIÄINEN – R. URO (eds.), Explaining Christian Origins and Early Judaism: Contri- butions from Cognitive and Social Science (BIS, 89), Leiden, Brill, 2007. 7. Cf. M. JOHNSON, The Body in the Mind: The Bodily Basis of Meaning, Imagination, and Reason, Chicago, IL, University Press, 1987; G. LAKOFF – M. JOHNSON, Metaphors We Live By, Chicago, IL, University Press, 1980; G. LAKOFF – M. JOHNSON, Philosophy in the Flesh: The Embodied Mind and Its Challenge to Western Thought, New York, Basic Books, 1999. 8. LAKOFF – JOHNSON, Metaphors We Live By (n. 7), p. 26. 206 F.S. TAPPENDEN standing of conceptual blending9. Whereas Lakoff and Johnson insist that human cognition happens by the process of projecting features of one (more concrete) source domain onto another (usually more abstract) target domain, Fauconnier and Turner describe how this process takes place while also moving beyond it. Accordingly, Fauconnier and Turner focus not only upon cross-space mappings (which are often metaphorical in nature) but also upon more abstract conceptual integration (which is often not metaphorical)10. What emerges is the assertion that conceptual blending is a “general, basic mental operation” which undergirds not only meaningful linguistic discourse, but understanding more generally11. Uti- lizing Fauconnier and Turner’s work as an analytical tool, much of what follows will be an examination and comparison of the conceptual blends represented within the relevant Pauline and Lucan texts. By way of demonstrating this theoretical matrix, a brief examination of 1 Cor 15,3-4 will enable us to consider the way conceptual metaphors (in this case, RESURRECTION IS CONSCIOUSNESS) and conceptual blends (in this case, The Corpse Wakes) actually work12. (For this and others blends discussed below, I refer the reader to the appendix and the various dia- grams listed there; see Diagram 1 [p. 225] for the present discussion.) The conceptual mapping represented here is a blending of the more concrete input space Awake/Asleep (I1) with the more abstract space Life/ Death (I2). In order for blending to happen, perceptual links have to be established between these two domains. These links are established through the Generic Space, which links up paired counterparts within each input and then projects the established cross-space mappings back onto the inputs (e.g., linking death with sleep).

9. Cf. G. FAUCONNIER, Mappings in Thought and Language, Cambridge, University Press, 1997; G. FAUCONNIER – M. TURNER, Conceptual Integration Networks, in Cognitive Science 22 (1998) 133-187; G. FAUCONNIER – M. TURNER, The Way We Think: Concep- tual Blending and the Mind’s Hidden Complexities, New York, Basic Books, 2002. 10. FAUCONNIER – TURNER, Networks (n. 9), pp. 133-187. 11. FAUCONNIER – TURNER, Way We Think (n. 9), p. 37. For examples of conceptual blending at work in numerous aspects of human life, see the various examples throughout ibid., esp. pp. 17-38. Concurrently, Lakoff and Johnson hold that though conceptual metaphors are made manifest in language, they are not only linguistic in nature; in addition to language some are manifested in gestures, art, rituals, etc. (LAKOFF – JOHNSON, Philosophy in the Flesh [n. 7], p. 57). 12. Following the style used in LAKOFF – JOHNSON, Metaphors We Live By (n. 7), small caps will be used throughout this study to designate concepts (e.g., CONSCIOUSNESS), conceptual metaphors (e.g., RESURRECTION IS CONSCIOUSNESS) and/or image schemata (e.g., UP-DOWN). This stylistic notation should be understood as a symbolic description of metaphoric mappings across conceptual domains: the target domain (RESURRECTION) is mapped to the source domain (CONSCIOUSNESS), with the mapping represented by the copula (IS) – cf. LAKOFF – JOHNSON, Philosophy in the Flesh (n. 7), p. 58. LUKE AND PAUL IN DIALOGUE 207

Table 113

Generic Space Elements and Input Counterparts in 1 Cor 15,3-413

I1 – Awake/Asleep Generic Space Element I2 – Life/Death Bed Resting Place Grave/Tomb Physical body Body Physical body Erect and able to act when Somatic/Kinetic State Erect and able to act when awake; alive; Lying down and still when Lying down and still when asleep dead Able to perceive and Cognizant State Able to perceive and communicate when awake; communicate when alive; Unable to perceive or Unable to perceive or communicate when asleep communicate when dead Going to sleep; Transition Dying; Waking up No correlation

As demonstrated in Table 1, the perceptual connections here are quite robust; several aspects of the two inputs are both paired and then cross- mapped together14. For the most part, these cross-space mappings are created in relation to the image schema UP-DOWN, an orientational structure that arises naturally from many of the most fundamental embodied human experiences15. Once these conceptual links are established, various elements from the inputs can then be selectively projected to the blended space. What emerges in the blend is the actual “waking up” (êgeírw) of the physical corpse that had died and was buried. Put differently, the blend contains emergent structure that was not found in either of the inputs – in this case, it is now possible to conceptualize someone as being dead but still alive (i.e., they are asleep). What results is the structuring of the concept RESURRECTION in relation to the basic human experience of waking to consciousness; hence the conceptual metaphor, RESURRECTION IS CONSCIOUSNESS. It is important to note that this metaphor should not be understood as a statement, as though Paul is asserting, “resurrection is consciousness”.

13. Note: for the sake of brevity, I have not sketched all the elements of Table 1 into Diagram 1 (p. 225). Instead, Diagram 1 has been drawn to include the UP-DOWN image schema (in the Generic Space) and the corresponding contents for I1 and I2 that are of immediate relevance in 1 Cor 15,3-4. The reader should note that all the contents listed in Table 1 (and perhaps more) should also be included in the corresponding spaces. 14. The author wishes to thank Bonnie Howe for reading an initial draft of this paper and offering many helpful suggestions regarding the function and importance of generic spaces. 15. LAKOFF – JOHNSON, Metaphors We Live By (n. 7), pp. 56-57. 208 F.S. TAPPENDEN

It should rather be understood as a conceptual structure that enables Paul to reason about RESURRECTION based on his experience of CONSCIOUSNESS. Conceptual metaphors naturally give rise to a number of entailments; for example, the RESURRECTION IS CONSCIOUSNESS metaphor entails one to favour active to passive (because people that are conscious function as agents in the world), or even light to dark (because consciousness is typically associated with the day, and sleep with the night). Furthermore, such entailments enable Paul and his interpreters to emphasize different aspects of resurrection. For instance, one could emphasize the state of being resurrected (i.e., as awake, standing up, being in light, etc.), though one could just as easily emphasize the process of being resurrected (e.g., as waking up, transition from down to up, etc.). As we can see, there is much play here, and the conceptual metaphor allows for variance in meaning, depending on what a discursive or interpretive context calls for. As any reader of Paul and the relevant period literature will know, however, the RESURRECTION IS CONSCIOUSNESS metaphor is ubiquitous, being expressed (for example) semantically through lexemes such as ânístjmi and êgeírw. To be certain, Paul inherits and utilizes concepts that were metaphorically used to refer to death and resurrection long before the 1st century C.E. in both Greek16 and Jewish17 contexts. What is of interest for us, however, is the way in which Paul uses this culturally established metaphor, along with its various entailments, so as to reason about – i.e., make sense of – resurrection. Thus, Paul draws on the RESUR- RECTION IS CONSCIOUSNESS metaphor in talking about such abstractions as resurrected bodies (cf. as noted above, 1 Cor 15,35-58 is built upon an UP-DOWN hierarchical scale of low- and high-level body types18), the significance of Christ’s life and death (cf. Phil 2,5-11, which is understood in terms of Christ’s abasement [DOWN] and exaltation [UP]), the baptism ritual (cf. Rom 6,3-4, where Paul describes a rite that links the baptizand with the death and risen life of Christ via shared up-down movements), and even Paul’s description of the events of the eschaton (cf. 1 Thess 4,13-18, where the entire eschatological drama is described in terms of upward and downward movement). Though far from exhaustive, this short list of Pauline passages suggests the degree to which the RESURREC-

16. E.g., ânístjmi, which LSJ glosses as “make to stand up, raise from sleep”, is used as early as the Iliad (§24,551) in reference to bringing someone back from the dead. Likewise, the metaphoric likening of DEATH/LIFE to ASLEEP/AWAKE is found at least as early as Plato (Phaedo, 70e–73a; Apology, 40c-d). 17. E.g., several references in the Hebrew Bible liken death to sleep (e.g., Jer 51,39; Job 3,13; 14,12), and the metaphor of waking from death is also found in the intertesta- mental literature (e.g., Dan 12,2; T. Jud. 25.4). 18. Cf. MARTIN, Corinthian Body (n. 1), pp. 123-131. LUKE AND PAUL IN DIALOGUE 209

TION IS CONSCIOUSNESS metaphor is ubiquitous in the apostle’s thought. As pervasive as this metaphor is, however, it is not the only way that Paul thinks about RESURRECTION. The problem Paul encounters, as do all users of language generally, is that no one metaphor provides enough conceptual structure to express everything the apostle wants to express. Though Paul gets a significant amount of mileage out of the RESURRECTION IS CONSCIOUSNESS metaphor, there are many aspects of his experience of the risen Christ that cannot be expressed through this metaphor’s structural entailments.

III. THE LORD’S SUPPER, JESUS’ BODY, AND PAUL’S RISEN CHRIST

The analysis that follows will examine two Pauline texts, specifically addressing the way that the concept UNION comes to structure the apostle’s understanding of both the rite and Jesus’ body. On this latter point, it is worth noting that the Lord’s Supper focuses (overtly) upon the body of Christ, an observation that is not insignificant due to the degree of variation in Paul’s thought regarding Jesus’ body (i.e., crucified, ecclesial, and/or risen). This somatic variation is curiously present and even conflated in Paul’s letters, enabling the apostle to talk at the same time about carrying both the death and life of Jesus within his own body (2 Cor 4,10). The following discussion will examine the confluence of Paul’s Christ-somatic understanding as it relates to the ritual of the Lord’s Supper, specifically focusing on the way in which the apostle blends his understanding of Christ’s body (variously understood) with the bread-rite practiced by his churches. The first text that warrants attention is found in 1 Cor 11,23-26, a pericope that includes a Lord’s Supper tradition that Paul has inherited. Before expanding upon the conceptual blend that is reflected within this text, it will be of benefit to first outline some cultural and anthropological context. To the former, both the remembrance directives as well as the reference to covenant (vv. 24-25) suggest that the ritual was initially framed by Jewish Passover practices, and it is in this way that Paul likely understands it (at least in part)19. Within such a context, the focus is not merely upon casual remembrance; rather, memory is seen as something

19. Compare with S.C. BARTON, Memory and Remembrance in Paul, in L.T. STUCKEN- BRUCK – S.C. BARTON – B.G. WOLD (eds.), Memory in the Bible and Antiquity: The Fifth Durham-Tübingen Research Symposium (Durham, September 2004) (WUNT, 212), Tübingen, Mohr Siebeck, 2007, 321-339, pp. 333-334. 210 F.S. TAPPENDEN that brings the remembering community into contact with the commemorated, even reliving the memorialized event itself. Stephen Barton has recently noted that memory is conceptualized in the Hebrew Bible and early Judaism primarily in relation to God’s covenantal relationship with Israel20. Remembrance is seen as both temporal and spatial, allowing those who remember to mnemonically transcend both time and space so as to re-encounter the past. In commenting on a Passover haggadah (m. Pesah. 10.4), Barton suggests that the commemoration of the exodus allows those who commemorate to feel that this deliverance is an event in which they share as well … remembrance binds the Jews together and binds them to a past, present and future which is in God’s hands21.

Such a Jewish understanding of remembrances was no doubt close to Paul’s understanding of the Lord’s Supper, in which the partaker was understood to encounter (mnemonically) Christ’s wounded and crucified body. Of concurrent and related importance are a number of the anthropological insights that Louise Lawrence highlights. Lawrence emphasizes that food rituals like the Lord’s Supper function as sites of memory that draw on a number of sensory stimuli and repeated contextual circum- stances in the recollection of the past. The past is remembered through embodied experiences such as smell, taste, touch, and sound; thus Lawrence contends: the sensory can place a person in experiential terms right back to another place, or enable them to empathise with distant events22.

Such observations of embodiment should not preclude the fact that food rituals are primarily practiced within communal settings. It comes as no surprise, then, that Paul’s main concern in 1 Cor 11,17-34 is the fragmented and divisive practices of the Corinthians regarding the Lord’s meal. The apostle seeks to call the Corinthians back to a place of ecclesial unity (cf. vv. 17-22 and 33-34) by correcting the disunity displayed while partaking of the rite. The central concern for Paul is the lack of unity within the church, and further that this disunity disrespects the crucified body of Christ (cf. 11,27). Given the cultural and anthropological insights just examined, we can now see that the account of the Lord’s Supper inscribed in 1 Cor 11,17-

20. Ibid., pp. 324-327. 21. Ibid., pp. 325-326. 22. L.J. LAWRENCE, Reading with Anthropology: Exhibiting Aspects of New Testament Religion, Bletchley, Paternoster, 2005, p. 183. Lawrence draws this point from D. SUTTON, Remembrance of Repasts: An Anthropology of Food and Memory, Oxford, Berg, 2001. LUKE AND PAUL IN DIALOGUE 211

34 is framed primarily in relation to the concept UNION, which finds expression in both remembrance (a kind of atemporal union between commemorator and commemorated) and communality (a re-unifying of the Corinthian church). Just as the concept CONSCIOUSNESS structures Paul’s understanding of resurrection (at least in part), so too does UNION structures Paul’s understanding of the Lord’s Supper in 11,23-26. Given the social dimension of human existence in the world, union is one of the most basic human experiences, arising from social interactions and familial relationships. Though socially constructed in different ways by many different cultures, the concept UNION consists of a complex interplay of (at least) two interrelated orientational image schemata – both CONTAIN- MENT (IN-OUT) and PROXIMITY (NEAR-FAR); before proceeding on with Paul we will examine both in detail. One of the most fundamental human experiences is that of containment. In both introducing and describing how image schemata work, Mark Johnson notes: Our encounter with containment and boundedness is one of the most pervasive features of our bodily experience … From the beginning, we experience constant physical containment in our surroundings (those things that envelope us). We move in and out of rooms, clothes, vehicles, and numerous kinds of bounded spaces. We manipulate objects, placing them in con- tainers (cups, boxes, cans, bags, etc.). In each of these cases there are repeatable spatial and temporal organizations. In other words, there are typical schemata for physical containment23.

Johnson’s description is just as true of human embodiment in the 1st century as it is of the 20th/21st century (with the possible exception of experiencing vehicles as instances of containment, at least not to the same extent). As a structuring schema for UNION, CONTAINMENT and its IN-OUT structure is pervasive. One of the richest and most primal experiences of union is that of the gestation process, where both mother and child are intimately connected as one and the child actually grows within the mother until it one day is delivered out of that same body. Similarly, within intimate relationships lovers hold each other within their arms and sexual intercourse actually enables one to be inside the other. Aside from these most intimate and natural human experiences, social interactions such as familial relationships (i.e., families live together within a single contained structure), as well as the experience of one’s own body (i.e., we experience our bodies to be a unified whole, made up of different parts), provide evidence for the experience of union in relation to the CONTAINMENT schema.

23. JOHNSON, The Body in the Mind (n. 7), p. 21. 212 F.S. TAPPENDEN

In addition to CONTAINMENT, the concept UNION is also structured by the image schema PROXIMITY, which is premised upon the orientational oppositions NEAR-FAR. As embodied social beings, humans experience proximity within relationships. Those we are intimate with are close to us (spatially speaking); likewise, those whom we do not wish to associate with are (ideally) kept at a distance. As Joseph E. Grady highlights, this recurring social phenomenon constitutes a correlation between affec- tion and physical proximity, which itself gives rise to a number of conceptual metaphors (e.g., EMOTIONAL INTIMACY IS PROXIMITY)24. In this way, the experience of union is concerned with orientational proximity. Those things that are connected are seen as close together while things that are fragmented are seen as disconnected and separate. Grady also notes a similar pattern with correlations between proximity and similarity – things that are seen as similar are often clustered together, put side-by- side, and even described as being close to one another in kind25. This correlation between proximity and both intimacy and similarity constitutes a structuring schema for the concept UNION whereby those things that are seen as connected, together, related, etc., are seen as being near to each other. The point to be made in all of this is that the concept UNION is structured by an interplay between the two image schemata CONTAINMENT (IN-OUT) and PROXIMITY (NEAR-FAR). Though these two schemata are different in their structuring, they naturally link-up with one another. For example, the intimate relationship between a mother and her child is such that both have experienced union as containment (e.g., in gestation) and proximity (e.g., as two separate human beings). Likewise, in the marriage relationship spouses who were once far apart and disconnected are brought together (NEAR-FAR) through the marriage bond and are actually made one through marital consummation (IN-OUT). Both of these examples not only demonstrate the tight connection these image schemata share, but they also display the degree to which the structuring of the concept UNION is embodied – i.e., both CONTAINMENT and PROXIMITY arise from somatic and cultural interaction in the world. Returning to 1 Corinthians, we are now in a place to describe the conceptual mapping that structures the blend created in 11,23-26 (see Diagram 2 [p. 226]). Given the context within which the rite was practiced (i.e., the ecclesia), the conceptual blend reflected within this text

24. J.E. GRADY, Foundations of Meaning: Primary Metaphors and Primary Scenes, Ph.D. Dissertation, University of California, Berkeley, 1997, p. 23. 25. Ibid., p. 283. LUKE AND PAUL IN DIALOGUE 213 consists of the three input spaces Food (i.e., Bread and Cup), Communal Gathering (i.e., the Ecclesia), and Christ (i.e., Crucified Christ). These input spaces are all linked together via the sub-generic spaces G1-2 (Pass- over Remembrance), G1-3 (Divine Presence), and G2-3 (Oneness). Dis- cussed in that order, the inputs are connected in the following ways:

First, I1 and I2 are linked via the sub-generic space Passover Remem- brance (G1-2). As we have noted, within the context of Jewish Passover remembrance, mnemonic acts are not at all trivial, but rather constitute a real union of the remembering subject with that which is remembered. The focus of this passage is an atemporal encounter, a kind of overcom- ing historical distance to not only (re-)encounter Christ’s crucified body (vv. 24-25) but to also proclaim his death until the Parousia (v. 26). The experience of remembrance here is a compression of time wherein events that are otherwise distant (i.e., FAR) are brought together (i.e., NEAR) through the embodied experience of the participants26. What we see in 11,23-26, then, is a temporal convergence of three otherwise separated events into a single moment; the past, present, and future are united into one. Concurrently, the context of table fellowship further emphasizes the PROXIMITY schema, as members of the ecclesia are brought together (NEAR) to share a meal.

Second, I1 and I3 are linked via the sub-generic space Divine Presence (G1-3). Though the bread/cup elements are metonymically linked with the body/covenant-in-my-blood elements within the tradition that Paul cites27, the exact interpretation of this metonymy might vary from banquet contexts. In the ancient Mediterranean, the partaking of meals was a common practice. Though no sharp distinction can/should be drawn between Jewish and Greco-Roman meals28, P. Coutsoumpos notes that Jewish meals were typically thought to happen in the presence of the divine being (i.e., a NEAR-FAR structure), whereas in Greco-Roman pagan meals the participants were thought to eat with the deity (again, a NEAR- FAR structure), perhaps even consuming the deity him/herself (who was

26. Cf. Barton notes: “the Lord’s meal unites past, present and future in a highly concentrated way… This eschatological setting [v. 26] gives the meal a very particular ethos which subverts mundane temporality” (BARTON, Memory and Remembrance [n. 19], p. 334). 27. Though the cup element is not directly linked to the blood of Christ but rather the covenant (par. Luke 22,20; contra. Mark 14,24 par. Matt 26,28), the focus is squarely upon Jesus’ death. Elsewhere, Paul himself understands the cup as being linked to the blood of Christ specifically (cf. 1 Cor 10,16). This suggests that though the rite is framed by the Jewish Passover (complete with a covenantal referent), the focus of the rite is squarely upon the remembrance of Jesus’ death (i.e., his blood and crucified body). 28. See D.E. SMITH, From Symposium to Eucharist: The Banquet in the Early Chris- tian World, Minneapolis, MN, Fortress, 2003, pp. 2-6. 214 F.S. TAPPENDEN thought to be in the elements – i.e., an IN-OUT structure)29. This latter point is contested, though here we find the strongest understanding of the food-for-divine-being metonymy. Drawing on this cultural background, the linking of the food elements with the body and blood of Christ is likely structured by a NEAR-FAR orientation schema (as in the Jewish and pagan meals), though the idea of eating the deity itself (IN-OUT) is not far removed. In either case, the focus is squarely upon some form of unity between the deity and the community, though the exact nature of this unity is open for interpretation.

Third, I2 and I3 are linked via the sub-generic space of Oneness (G2-3). We introduce here a topic to which we will return below, namely, the sub-generic space Oneness which correlates the ecclesia with the crucified body of Christ through Paul’s own embodied religious experience of Oneness with Christ. One does not have to look far in Paul’s letters to find this theme expressed. In Gal 2,19 Paul insists that he has been crucified with Christ (sunestaúrwmai; compare Rom 6,6), in Rom 6,1-11 he talks about being buried with Christ (sunetáfjmen – 6,4; compare 6,3) and having died with Christ (âpe‡ánomen sùn Xrist¬ç – 6,8; compare 6,5), in Phil 3,10 he speaks of sharing in Christ’s sufferings so as to become like Christ (summorfihómenov) in his death, and in 2 Cor 4,10- 12 Paul speaks of carrying the death of Jesus in the body30. As with the risen life of Christ (which will be examined below), the death of Christ is something that Paul speaks of as an experience that has happened (or will happen) within his body; the focus is not merely upon the idea of participating in Christ’s death, but rather a real embodying of that death within Paul’s own person (i.e., an IN-OUT frame). Paul contends that this real embodying of Christ’s death is true not only of himself, but for all members of the ecclesia (compare Rom 6.1-11). Thus, Paul’s experience of Oneness links I2 with I3 because the apostle sees his experience as normative for the ecclesia. In light of the sub-generic spaces just examined, it becomes evident that the controlling concept that frames this blend is UNION. This is real- ized through the cross-space mappings of the input spaces via the interplay of the image schemata PROXIMITY and CONTAINMENT in the generic

29. P. COUTSOUMPOS, Paul and the Lord’s Supper: A Socio-Historical Investigation (Studies in Biblical Literature, 84), New York, Peter Lang, 2005, pp. 9-37, esp. 36. 30. Understood against this backdrop, Colleen Shantz has suggested that Paul’s reference in Gal 6,17 to carrying the “marks of Jesus in my body” (tà stígmata toÕ ˆIjsoÕ ên t¬ç sÉmatí mou) may refer to Paul’s sense of bodily union with Jesus’ death (C. SHANTZ, The Confluence of Trauma and Transcendence in the Pauline Corpus, in FLANNERY et al. [eds.], Experientia [n. 4], 193-205, p. 204). LUKE AND PAUL IN DIALOGUE 215 space. The inputs and sub-generic spaces are all linked together via the commonly shared structure just outlined – G1-2 draws on PROXIMITY, G1-3 draws on PROXIMITY (though perhaps CONTAINMENT), and G2-3 draws on CONTAINMENT. Given this structure, the rite is primarily concerned with the concept UNION, which finds expression in the present context through the commemoration of Christ’s death. Paul is re-instructing the Corinthi- ans as to their execution of the ritual, and in so doing the original remembrance directive comes to the fore. By drawing the various input elements together, the blend Consuming Bread is Remembering Christ’s Body emerges, where remembrance is understood in a robust way so as to include a kind of atemporal union with Jesus, the ecclesia’s commemorated Passover lamb (cf. 1 Cor 5,7). As we have already suggested, however, the significance of encountering Christ in the Lord’s Supper runs much deeper in the apostle’s thought than Passover remembrance (no matter how richly we understand this experience to have been). For Paul, his experience of union with Christ is not merely conceptual, a kind of epistemological ascent so as to bring Christ cogni- zantly near; rather, it is a real oneness (in the sense of CONTAINMENT) with both Jesus’ death and risen life. Paul’s contrasting of the individual believ- er’s union with Christ to the act of sexual intercourse in 1 Cor 6,15-17 emphasizes this point clearly – as discussed above, sexual intimacy is an embodied experience of both CONTAINMENT and PROXIMITY31. The clearest expression of Paul’s sense of being united with Christ is in his consistent use of ên Xrist¬ç and other related phrases32. As Dunn suggests, in some sense he [Paul] experienced Christ as the context of all his being and doing. We can hardly avoid some sort of locative sense in the preposi- tion ‘in’, at least in a number of cases33.

Similarly, Douglas Campbell contends that Paul’s Christ-participatory language

31. Cf. Colleen Shantz notes that Paul “contrasts sexual ecstasy and religious ecstasy as analogous forms of bodily union” (C. SHANTZ, Paul in Ecstasy: The Neurobiology of the Apostle’s Life and Thought, Cambridge, University Press, 2009, p. 135). E.P. Sanders notes the seriousness with which Paul takes these analogous unions, stating: “A person cannot participate in two mutually exclusive unions… [Paul insists that] one should not fornicate because fornication produces a union which excludes one from a union which is salvific… The participatory union is not a figure of speech for something else; it is, as many scholars have insisted, real” (E.P. SANDERS, Paul and Palestinian Judaism: A Com- parison of Patterns of Religion, Philadelphia, PA, Fortress, 1977, pp. 454-455 [emphasis original]). 32. For a discussion of the various phrases and related concepts, see J.D.G. DUNN, The Theology of Paul the Apostle, Grand Rapids, MI, Eerdmans, 1998, pp. 390-412 and SANDERS, Paul and Palestinian Judaism (n. 31), pp. 434-523, esp. 453-472. 33. DUNN, Theology of Paul (n. 32), p. 400. 216 F.S. TAPPENDEN

is not just an idea, or a mental identification. Paul clearly believes that something quite real has happened; it is irreducibly concrete34.

Colleen Shantz has recently suggested that for Paul, this “quite real … irreducibly concrete” experience is bodily based, constitutive of the apostle’s own “somatic memory of union”35. Drawing on neurological studies of religious experience (specifically Altered States of Consciousness [ASC]), Shantz highlights the effects such experiences produce, specifically upon the way the body is perceived by the human subject36. In the midst of ASCs, subjects experience their bodies differently than during normal consciousness. Though the body continues to be perceived, subjects lose conscious awareness of their weight, boundaries, pain, even the ability to move and act37. Such euphoric experiences produce significant effects, as Shantz notes: At the peak of neuropsychological tuning, this change in bodily perceptions extends to ‘a decreased sense or awareness of the boundaries between the subject and other individuals, between the subject and external inanimate objects, between the subject and putative supernatural beings, and indeed, at the extreme, the diminution and abolition of all boundaries of discrete being’. This state results in a profound sense of unity that is nuanced by the enculturation of the mystic. The ecstatic experiences a certainty of oneness with a particular divine being or with all being, a certainty that endures long after the trance ends38.

Understood against this neurological backdrop, the concreteness of union that Paul describes is not merely an exegetical or theological reflection/interpretation, but rather a real, tangible experience; Paul actually experienced the risen Christ in his body. The vagueness of this last statement (in his body) is intentional, as it highlights the blurring of somatic boundaries between Paul’s own body and his sense of union with Christ’s risen body39. Returning to the initial question posed at the outset

34. D.A. CAMPBELL, The Quest for Paul’s Gospel: A Suggested Strategy (JSNT.SS, 274), London, T&T Clark, 2005, p. 40. 35. SHANTZ, Trauma and Transcendence (n. 30), p. 203. 36. See ibid., pp. 200-204, and the larger study SHANTZ, Paul in Ecstasy (n. 31), pp. 67-109. 37. Thus Shantz, “The body … is striped away and yet subjects continue to know themselves as embodied” (SHANTZ, Trauma and Transcendence [n. 30], p. 202). 38. SHANTZ, Paul in Ecstasy (n. 31), pp. 100-101; citing E.G. D’AQUILI – A.B. NEW- BERG, Liminality, Trance, and Unitary States in Ritual and Meditation, in Studia Liturgica 23 (1993) 2-34, p. 3. 39. Thus Shantz: “Paul’s body is the site within which Christ is present … The neu- rocognitive experience of temporarily sharing the identity of the risen Christ is now ‘writ- ten’ on Paul’s person … through religious experience Paul’s very body came to contain the perception that he was not alone and that the strength of others – in particular the LUKE AND PAUL IN DIALOGUE 217 of this paper, however else Paul conceptualized Christ’s risen body, he certainly understood it in relation to his own mystical experience. Paul’s risen Christ is not merely epistemological – he is, at a most foundational level, embodied. One final Pauline text demonstrates the extent to which Paul’s ecstatic experience blurs the lines between his own body and Christ’s risen body – namely, 1 Cor 10,17. Though Paul retains the traditional referent of “Christ’s blood and body” in 10,16 (though here inverted, likely for emphasis40), in 10,17 he drops any reference to the blood/cup and instead refocuses the bread-rite upon the ecclesial body of Christ (i.e., the êkkljsía; cf. 1 Cor 12,27). This refocusing constitutes a conceptual shift from the crucified body of Christ to that body which the church forms41. To be certain, the two concepts are not unrelated42, though they are different. Whereas Christ’s crucified body is commemorated in 11,23-26, in 10,17 we step beyond commemoration (i.e., Passover remembrance) and instead enter the realm of participatory experience. Paul’s body, along with those of the other ecclesia members, actually comprise Christ’s body itself. The shift in meaning is both distinct and noticeable43, though the conceptual mapping reflected in the passage is strikingly similar to what we see in 11,23-26. As mapped in Diagram 3 (p. 227), we again have the same three input spaces, though the content of both I1 and I3 have been adapted for the present discursive context – I1 includes only a reference to bread, while I3 is focused upon Paul’s (ecstatic) experience of the risen Christ. We again see that the concept UNION frames the entire blend. The CONTAINMENT and PROXIMITY schemata again cross-map the inputs and sub-generic spaces with one another, the latter of which has also undergone some adaptation. Whereas G1-2 now draws on the more general idea of Table Fellowship44 (linked via the schema PROXIMITY), G1-3 emphasizes a tighter, more acute connection between the divine being and the human participants (though still utiliz- strength of Christ to whom he was joined in trance – was available to him” (SHANTZ, Trauma and Transcendence [n. 30], p. 203). 40. Cf. E. KÄSEMANN, The Pauline Doctrine of the Lord’s Supper, in ID., Essays on New Testament Themes, London, SCM Press, 1964, 108-135, p. 110. 41. Cf. A.J.M. WEDDERBURN, Body of Christ and Related Concepts in 1 Corinthians, in SJT 24 (1971) 74-96, p. 76. 42. Thus Wedderburn: “it is very difficult to regard the idea of the Church as the Body of the risen Christ as prior to, or independent of, that of Christians sharing in the death of Christ” (ibid.). 43. Thus Käsemann, “while Paul refers to the early Christian tradition in v. 16, he interprets it in v. 17” (KÄSEMANN, Pauline Doctrine [n. 40], p. 110). 44. Table Fellowship is reflective of the ecclesia meetings more generally, but it also accounts for Paul’s references to other banquet settings in 10,14.21 (and perhaps v. 18). 218 F.S. TAPPENDEN ing the PROXIMITY schema45). Of notable difference between this blend and that examined in 11,23-26 is the sub-generic correlation of Oneness

(G2-3), which projects union with the living and risen Christ (rather than his crucified body) to the blended space. Just as the correlation of One- ness in 11,23-26 was focused upon Paul’s experience of participation in the death of Christ, the parallel expression here is centred upon Paul’s (and the ecclesia’s) participation in the risen life of Christ. By partaking of the bread Paul insists that the Corinthians are mystically unified with each other through participation in/with the risen life/body of Christ; hence the emergent blended space Consuming Bread is Union With(in) Christ’s Body. It is worth noting that in this passage, which is the closest Paul comes to focusing the Lord’s Supper upon any kind of risen body for Christ, the body of Christ in question is not that of flesh and blood, but rather the community itself; the risen life of Christ mystically constitutes and sus- tains the community through the structuring concept UNION. As one can see, the mystical Paul is at his best in 1 Cor 10,17. The likening of the bread to the ecclesial body of Christ in such a way that it reflexively unifies and represents the community is not easily expressed, and it seems that Paul himself struggles to connect what he understands as the risen life of Christ to what might be concretely understood as the body of Christ (either crucified, ecclesial, or some kind of risen body). The purpose of the preceding discussion has been to map the conceptual links that structure Paul’s thinking on the relationship between the Lord’s Supper and the body of Christ. We have argued that Paul’s own religious experience(s) serve(s) as the embodied grounding within which such conceptualizations emerge. Paul’s conception of union with Christ is not just a form of self-identification; rather, it is a deeply mystical experience, connecting both the death and risen life of Christ with the ecclesia in the present. In this sense, Paul understands Jesus’ risen body not as a corporeal body that is to be commemorated in specific appearance events, but rather as a pneumatic body that is united to his own and con- firmed in rituals such as the Lord’s Supper. The point to be made here is that Paul conceptualizes the risen body of Christ not only by the concept CONSCIOUSNESS, but also (and more completely?) through the concept UNION. How later interpreters of Paul might recast this mystically centred conceptualization is not exactly clear; it is to this that we now turn.

45. Cf. Paul’s central concern in 10,18-21 is the Corinthians’ participation with Christ vis-à-vis other divine beings (specifically demons – note the uses of koinwnía and koi- nwnóv in vv. 16.18.20) – cf. SANDERS, Paul and Palestinian Judaism (n. 31), pp. 455-456. LUKE AND PAUL IN DIALOGUE 219

IV. LUKE AS AN INTERPRETER OF PAUL: CHRIST’S RISEN BODY IN LUKE 24

Turning to Luke’s gospel, we can now consider the issue of Luke-Paul connectivity, specifically in how these authors conceptualize the risen Christ within their texts. As mentioned above, the potential connection between the authentic Paulines and Luke-Acts is contested within NT scholarship. Despite the Lucan author’s obvious interest in the figure of Paul, many NT scholars tend to read the epistles and Luke-Acts as two unrelated corpora46. By way of contrast, a small yet persistent stream of scholars continue to promote Luke-Paul connectivity, often contending that the Lucan author was aware of Paul’s letters but failed to explicitly identify them for compositional and/or ideological reasons47. Recently, however, some have suggested that Luke writes as an interpreter of Paul, just as many others did in the late-1st/early-2nd century48. Falling closer in line with this emergent (minority) position, the present paper contends that issues of Luke-Paul connectivity should not be so quickly judged in the negative and that further comparison is warranted. Our focus in what remains of this paper is the illumination of conceptual connections between both Paul’s and Luke’s understanding of Jesus’ risen body, par- ticularly in relation to the Lord’s Supper.

46. This scholarly position dates back to Philipp VIELHAUER’s now famous article Zum “Paulinismus” der Apostelgeschichte (in EvT 10 [1950-1951] 1-15), in which he argues: “He [Luke] presents no specifically Pauline idea” (ET = P. VIELHAUER, On the “Paulin- ism” of Acts, in L.E. KECK – J.L. MARTYN [eds.], Studies in Luke-Acts, Philadelphia, PA, Fortress, 1980, 33-50, p. 48). Due to this sharp distinction, many scholars have sought to read both Luke and Paul as independent historical witnesses to the apostle’s life (see, e.g., F.F. BRUCE, Paul in Acts and Letters, in D. REID [ed.], Dictionary of Paul and His Letters, Downers Grove, IL, InterVarsity Press, 1993, 679-692). 47. Cf. F.C. BAUR, Paulus, der Apostel Jesu Christi: Sein Leben und Wirken, seine Briefe und seine Lehre, Stuttgart, Becher & Müller, 1845; M.S. ENSLIN, “Luke” and Paul, in JAOS 58 (1938) 81-91; M.S. ENSLIN, Once Again, Luke and Paul, in ZNW 61 (1970) 253-271; J. KNOX, Acts and the Pauline Letter Corpus, in KECK – MARTYN (eds.), Studies in Luke-Acts (n. 46), 279-287; W.O. WALKER, JR., Acts and the Pauline Corpus Recon- sidered, in JSNT 24 (1985) 3-23. 48. Richard I. Pervo offers the most comprehensive and detailed treatment of this issue, contending that Luke did know of Paul’s letters (authentic and some deutero-Paul- ine), and further that the Lucan author seeks to refurbish the image of Paul. Thus, just as the deutero-Pauline letters seek to revive Paul’s image, so to does Acts (and Luke before it – R.I. PERVO, Dating Acts: Between the Evangelists and the Apologists, Santa Rosa, CA, Polebridge Press, 2006, pp. 51-147). A recent collection of essays has also addressed the issue, specifically focusing on the reception of Paulinsim in Acts. This collection seeks to neither accept Luke as an eyewitness of Paul, nor as a writer of fiction, but rather envisions the evangelist as both narrator and interpreter of Paul in the late first century C.E. (D. MARGUERAT [ed.], Reception of Paulinism in Acts / Réception du Paulinisme dans les Actes des apôtres [BETL, 229], Leuven, Peeters, 2009). 220 F.S. TAPPENDEN

Most scholars, when examining potential Luke-Paul connections, seek to identify explicit intertextual citations and/or allusions between the two corpora. Along these lines we might note, along with other scholars, the following resurrection connections: 1) within the first century, only Luke and Paul note that the risen Christ first appeared to Simon/Cephas (Luke 24,34; cf. 1 Cor 15,5)49, and 2) where Paul appeals to a series of resurrection appearances (1 Cor 15,5-8), the expansion of Luke’s narrative in Acts 1,3-11 accommodates these appearances (vis-à-vis Luke 24,50- 53)50. To these we might add the following: 3) both Luke and Paul insist that Jesus’ resurrection is in accordance with the scriptures (Luke 24,25- 27.32.44-47; cf. 1 Cor 15,3-5); 4) among NT writers, only Paul and Luke (and the deutero-Paulines) use the metaphoric image of clothing in relation to the spiritual state that resurrection effects on earth (Luke 24,49; cf. Gal 3,27; 1 Thess 5,8; Rom 13,12-14)51; and finally 5) though the reference in Acts 1,11 to Jesus’ eventual return should certainly be linked with Jesus’ own comments in Luke 21,2752, it might also be seen in relation to 1 Thess 4,13-18. Taken together, this small collection of intertextual parallels suggests at least a casual connection between the two corpora. Though these similarities do not provide enough evidence to affirm Luke’s knowledge of Paul’s letters, we might affirm a level of common interest between the two authors. Pressing our examination further, it is possible to demonstrate Luke- Paul connectivity at a more foundational level. For this we turn to Luke’s description of the (Lord’s) Supper at Emmaus in Luke 24,30-31.35. Just as the two Pauline passages examined above incorporated different bodies of Christ into the blend, so too Luke focuses upon yet another body – in this case, the risen body of Christ. Unlike Paul, the genre of Luke’s account necessitates the narration of this body. Accordingly, Luke spares no time describing Christ’s risen manifestation in a way that is strikingly similar to regular human existence. Despite the fact that Christ is able to disappear, reappear, and ascend to heaven53, Luke narrates this risen body as a regular human body – i.e., the risen Christ is able to act, listen, walk,

49. Cf. ENSLIN, “Luke” and Paul (n. 47), pp. 86-87; W. SCHENK, Luke as Reader of Paul: Observations on His Reception, in S. DRAISMA (ed.), Intertextuality in Biblical Writings: Essays in Honour of Bas van Iersel, Kampen, Kok, 1989, 127-139, pp. 136-137; PERVO, Dating Acts (n. 48), p. 70. 50. Cf. ENSLIN, “Luke” and Paul (n. 47), p. 87. 51. In the deutero-Paulines, see Eph 4,24; 6,11-17; and Col 3,9-12. Along with these we should also consider the eschatological understanding of wearing proper clothing at the time of the resurrection – 1 Cor 15,53-54; cf. Luke 12,35 (and perhaps 15,22). 52. Cf. Mark 13,26 par. and Matt 24,30 par. 53. See Luke 24,31.36.50-51; Acts 1,9-11. LUKE AND PAUL IN DIALOGUE 221 talk, stand, sit, eat, and even reason (expound the scriptures and teach about the kingdom)54. Given this characterization, Luke’s conceptualization of Christ’s risen body seems to largely be structured by the RESUR- RECTION IS CONSCIOUSNESS metaphor, where Luke specifically emphasizes normal human embodiment (i.e., expressions of CONSCIOUSNESS) as the mode of Christ’s risen interactions with the disciples. Contrasted with Paul’s understanding of the risen body of Christ in relation to the apostle’s own ecstatic bodily experience, Dunn is surely correct that “what Luke affirms … Paul denies”55. If correspondence is to be found between these two authors’ perceptions of the Lord’s Supper and the risen Christ, it will not happen at the narratological level. Turning to a more nuanced and theoretically informed evaluation of Luke 24, an examination of the conceptual blend that structures vv. 30-31.35 reveals a conceptual network that is strikingly similar to what was found in the Pauline texts examined above (see Diagram 4 [p. 228]). Like the Pauline passages, the blend reflected in Luke 24,30-31.35 shares the same three input spaces, though I3 has been adapted for the present narrative context56. Like the Pauline passages, this blend shares the same sub-generic spaces, with the exception of G2-3 which is here adapted to accommodate the risen body that comprises I3. Like the Pauline passages, the sub-generic spaces G1-2 and G1-3 are both mapped to the blended space through the image schema PROXIMITY57. Despite these similarities, the Lucan blend differs from its Pauline counterparts in two specific ways, neither of which is insignificant. We have already mentioned the first difference – namely, the body of Christ that is encountered here is the risen body of Christ, conceptualized in relation to the RESURRECTION IS CONSCIOUSNESS metaphor. Tied in with this is the second major difference: the sub-generic space G2-3, like its counterparts G1-2 and G1-3, maps onto the blended space through the image schema PROXIMITY (contra the

54. See Luke 24,15-31.36-51; Acts 1,2-11. 55. DUNN, Evidence (n. 5), p. 74. 56. In addition to I3, I1 comprises the same food element as 1 Cor 10,17 (i.e., bread, compare Luke 24,30.35) with no mention of the cup, whereas I2 is structured in relation to the communal gathering in which the Lucan audience regularly meets (i.e., the ecclesia). 57. In the case of G1-2, not only is table fellowship one of the major themes within the Lucan texts, but it is also an activity characterized by the coming together (NEAR) of individuals to share a meal. As for G1-3, though Luke does not equate the bread with Christ’s body in vv. 30-31.35, the evangelist does make this metonymic assertion elsewhere (see 22,19). Because of this, I1 and I3 are still linked via Divine Presence, though this sub- generic space is understood as PROXIMITY – i.e., Jesus has come near and is now recognized in the moment of breaking the bread. It should be noted, however, that the potential of the food for divine being metonymy still exists (as in both 1 Cor 11,23-26 and Luke 22,19-20). 222 F.S. TAPPENDEN two Pauline texts which utilize the CONTAINMENT schema in this space).

This schematic adaptation results largely from the content of I3. Once one places emphasis upon CONSCIOUSNESS by affirming a body of flesh and blood, conceptualizing any kind of Oneness with such a body is difficult, perhaps even impossible (barring any kind of sexual and/or gestation description). Conversely, the concept of Togetherness not only fits with the PROXIMITY aspect of the structuring frame, but it is also congruent with the type of body that is narrated (i.e., a body of flesh and blood can be together with [or draw near to] others). Furthermore, the focus of Luke’s text is squarely upon the recognition of Christ (cf. 24,35), whereas for Paul the focus was upon ecclesial oneness within Christ’s body. For Luke, the concept UNION is more limited and less malleable towards the kind of ecstatic experience that is so familiar in Paul’s understanding. What emerges within Luke 24,30-31.35 is the blended space Consuming Bread is Recognition of the Risen Christ, where the risen Christ is conceptualized in relation to CONSCIOUSNESS more than UNION. We have already noted several intertextual parallels between the Pauline and Lucan corpora. In light of the conceptual blend just examined, it is possible to now identify two more. First, it should not be overlooked that Luke locates the recognition of Christ’s risen body within the sacramental moment, just as Paul does. Thus, Jesus is not recognized on the road as he walks and talks with his disciples, but rather “in the breaking of the bread” (ên t±Ç klásei toÕ ãrtou – 24,35). Likewise, Jesus appears to the disciples in 24,36-49 in the context of a meal (see also Acts 1,4). Though Luke constructs the body of the risen Christ via the concept CONSCIOUSNESS, he nonetheless places the recognition of this body within the context of ecclesial gatherings and table fellowship. Whatever else Jesus’ risen body might be to Luke (i.e., a body that can walk, talk, eat, disappear, camouflage itself, etc.), it is at its most recognizable level a body made manifest in the sacramental moment. This leads us to our second point, which is that both Luke and Paul conceptualize the Lord’s Supper as a ritual with a dual focus. We have discussed above two different Pauline understandings of the Lord’s Sup- per as inscribed in 1 Cor 11 and 10 – namely, commemoration of the crucified body of Christ and participation with(in) the ecclesial/living body of Christ, respectively. In this way, Paul conceptualizes the ritual as encompassing both the death and risen life of Christ. Considering Luke’s Gospel, it is perhaps not insignificant that the evangelist also inscribes two interpretations of the rite – in Luke 22,14-23 the focus is squarely upon commemoration of the crucified body of Christ, while LUKE AND PAUL IN DIALOGUE 223

Luke 24,30-31.35 focuses upon Christ’s risen body. Moreover, in those texts where the apostle and the evangelist focus upon the death of Christ (i.e., 1 Cor 11,23-26 and Luke 22,14-23), both the bread and the cup are mentioned. Conversely, where these authors focus upon the risen life of Christ, only the bread is mentioned (i.e., 1 Cor 10,17 and Luke 24,30- 31.35). Though space precludes a thorough analysis of Luke 22,14-2358, the dual emphases that both authors place upon the bread-rite suggests that Luke and Paul share a number of conceptual connections that lie below the surface of mere intertextual parallels.

V. CONCLUSION

We have suggested in this paper that both Paul and the Lucan author share a conceptualization of the Lord’s Supper that not only draws upon the same blending structure (e.g., input spaces), but which also shares a common structuring concept – i.e., UNION. It has also been demonstrated that these two authors conceptualize three different bodies for Christ (the crucified body, the ecclesial body, and the risen body of Christ), and further that the type of union envisioned by these authors differs largely in relation to the type of body conceptualized. Concerning the evangelist, the Lucan narrative seems to give preference to the aforementioned RES- URRECTION IS CONSCIOUSNESS metaphor. This preference precludes, or at least makes very difficult, notions of Oneness (i.e., CONTAINMENT) and instead focuses more so on Togetherness (PROXIMITY). In contrast, the apostle seems to place more emphasis upon the concept UNION (including both PROXIMITY and CONTAINMENT) rather than CONSCIOUSNESS. Jan de Villiers has put it well (here recalling A. Deissmann), [The] certainty of the nearness of Christ occurs far more frequently in Paul’s writings than the thought of the distant Christ ‘highly exalted’ in heaven … Christ is Spirit, therefore He can live in Paul and Paul in Him. Just as the air of life, which we breathe, is ‘in’ us and fills us, and yet we at the same time live in this air and breathe it, so it is also with the Christ- intimacy of the apostle Paul: Christ in him, he in Christ59.

58. With the NA27 I take the longer reading of Luke 22,17-20 to be original to the evangelist (the textual evidence for the longer reading is just too numerous, diverse, and P75]). The parallels between this longer reading and 1 Cor 11,23- ,א ,strong [including A, B 26 (contra Mark 14,22-25 par. Matt 26,26-30) suggest that Luke and Paul at least share a common source, if the evangelist is not dependent upon 1 Corinthians itself. 59. J. DE VILLIERS, Adolf Deissmann: A Reappraisal of His Work, Especially His Views on the Mysticism of Paul, in S.E. PORTER (ed.), Paul and His Theology (Pauline Studies, 3), Leiden, Brill, 2006, 393-422, p. 408. 224 F.S. TAPPENDEN

To be certain, both the CONSCIOUSNESS and UNION concepts are present in Paul’s thought (as in Luke’s), though it may be that UNION proved more productive in terms of the apostle’s understanding of Christ’s resurrection, whereas CONSCIOUSNESS proved more helpful for the evangelist. Thus we see both Luke and Paul negotiating the emphases they give to these two structuring schemas. Such a suggestion warrants further investigation; nonetheless, in their understandings of the Lord’s Supper, it is possible to demonstrate a shared conceptual mapping between both the apostle’s and the evangelist’s thought. This shared mapping enables Luke to, on the one hand, be consistent with Paul’s thought while, on the other hand, still distinctly narrate his own understanding of the risen body of Christ. In this view, Luke and Paul do not seem too far apart, though they are certainly distinct.

University of Manchester Frederick S. TAPPENDEN Department of Religions and Theology Centre for Biblical Studies Oxford Road Manchester M13 9PL United Kingdom LUKE AND PAUL IN DIALOGUE 225 226 F.S. TAPPENDEN LUKE AND PAUL IN DIALOGUE 227 228 F.S. TAPPENDEN